TPMCafe
« The Real 'American Dilemma' | Home | Standing up for Internet Freedom »

Democrats Not Sad, Just Furious (at Democrats)

user-pic

UPDATED:

Did you see what Josh Marshall posted yesterday on the font page?

"We're currently having our daily afternoon editorial meeting. And man, I don't think I've ever heard so much sarcasm, biting comments and just hilarity of a painful sort. Mainly coming from me."

In just a few sentences, he summed up the mood among Democrats. Not tears but fury.

For the first time since 1967-1968, we are more pissed off at our party than at the Republicans. Who expects anything from the Republicans which, in the spirit of its leader, Rush Limbaugh, hopes for the worst for the country?

We certainly are not pissed off at Scott Brown who ran a textbook perfect campaign. He did his job, which was to win and he did it without the usual GOP venom. (And Glen Beck hates him which, I have to say, gives me a little hope),

Underneath the anger Democrats feel is deep disappointment. But it does not come close to the anger that so many feel over the way this first year has turned out.

That means that the President's first task has to be getting the base back on board. A demoralized base -- up against an energized jubilant Republican party -- is the ticket to a Republican Congress in 2010.

A friend said to me today, "I'll take Sarah Palin over Evan Bayh and his DLC Blue Dogs any day of the week. She doesn't pretend to be a Democrat."

That made sense yesterday, if not as a rule of thumb. Watching Bayh happily calling on Democrats to now abandon the progressive agenda was nauseating.

My friend's reaction is far from rare. I sure hope the President knows it. And does something about it. Because right now he is in danger of losing his hold over the very people who worked hardest to get him nominated and elected.

He's losing Obama loyalists. The Clinton supporters, less ardent by definition, are not nearly as angry. They didn't expect much from Obama anyway. But the Obama diehards, are fit to be tied.

The President needs to take some action that indicates that he gets it and that the Massachusetts election was the fire alarm he needed. And he needs to get the HCR bill passed by hook, crook, or reconciliation.


46 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Where is the Josh Marshall Post?

Where is the expected proper and forthright TPM Reader concern from TPM Reader and as I have continuously reply blog commented for years and suggested on this website and formerly Government Accountability Project GAP, NWC National Whistleblower Center and POGO Project on Government Oversight websites for years within this relatively new Blog Comment Media?

Where is the expected and overdue more proper and forthright concern from TPM Readers and TPM and there TPM Cafe Bloggers and/or any so-called 'We the People Advocate Websites' to more properly and fully unite as and on behalf of 'We the People' concerns, especially within our US Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence endeavors?

Facebook

Thanks for your patience and sorry for the inconvenience!

Best regards, Mary, CEO of youtube download

user-pic

I sure has hell would take Evan byah over Sarah Palin. I will never vote for someone who thinks I am not a Real American. Sarah Palin doesn't pretend to be a Democrat, she just pretends to care. No one can make me angry enough to make a destructive decision like that.

user-pic

Word.

user-pic

Don't get mad, get even. Take it out in plotting against Republicans.

The only silver lining so far is the possibility that this will work as a real wake-up call for electing progressives in 2010.

user-pic

The Dem's need to look in the mirror and say, "This is all your fault!"

For the most part, the Repubs, although sick and wrong, do seem to be able to keep their focus much better than too many of the Dem caucus!

I'm ashamed of and for them. They, just like their brethren across the aisle, seem to be giving most of their allegiance to their donors and cohorts than they ever do their constituents.

Sad, very sad.

user-pic

Nawwwww MJ...I really loathe republicans with every fiber of my being. But this is as close as I have even been to being as pissed at the D's as I am with the R's.

An once in a century mandate for change from the American people being pissed away so they can play nice with people looking to politically destroy them and get even more money from their corporate benefactors...all the stuff they were mandated to change. All the while telling the base, the foundation, of their party to, pardon my language, fuck off...our input is no only not required but it is completely unwelcome.

Then on top of it we get blamed for their complete and total political incompetence when they were asleep at the switch and Massachusetts, along with their precious but tepid HCR, went south on them. They aren't even adult enough to accept the blame when they screwed the pooch. What a three ring bullshit circus sideshow the Democratic Party is right now...the Keystone Cops of politics, the Not Ready For Prime Time Political Players.

user-pic

Could not have said it better myself.

user-pic

Agreed!
I am really pissed off at the Democrats. They had, and said they recognized they had, a mandate from the people to end the war in Iraq. They have expanded that war into Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan.

They said they understood the trouble Americans had in the financial sector. And they allowed the Federal Reserve Bank to give billions of dollars at 0% interest to the banks and financial institutions which turned those interest free loans into massive profits while presenting a minimum relief payment to the average American.

They said they would reinstitute the "rule of law", but wouldn't prosecute admitted war crimes of members of the Bush Administration. They also kept many, if not all, of the US Attorneys who were involved in bogus "voter fraud" investigations and kept in place Bush appointees who have botched investigations and trials of Republican crooks. Ted Stevens is still free while Don Siegelman is still in jail.

They promised open government and immediately adopted the "National Security" meme to hide government inefficiency and lawbreaking.

They promised health care reform and kept negotiating with themselves until health care reform has become a giveaway to the health insurance industry. They cannot blame the Republicans for this. They did it to themselves. The only time they called the Republicans bluff (we will work through Christmas until the health care bill is voted out of committee) the Republicans folded like a house of cards in a high wind.

When the Democrats start addressing these issues will be the day they start getting the American people behind them. This matters as the REpublicans found out in 2006 and 2008. It hasn't taken the Democrats long to forget this fact.

The Republicans may be the party of NO, but the Democrats are fast becomming the party of NO RESULTS.

Without results before the 2010 elections, the Democrats can expect major defeats.

I wish them good luck and steady progress.
.

Facebook
user-pic

And where were the progressives who "promised" to come out and vote for Coakley? Oh yeah...sending a message.

user-pic

Yes, the president has to work harder to win over the kind of supporter who would say "I'll take Sarah Palin over Evan Bayh any day of the week."

That makes a lot of sense.

user-pic

Wrong.
Obama has to convince Americans that there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats and that Democrats have the ability to govern. That has been sadly lacking in his first year in office.

Lacking this, there will be little incentive for progressives to go to the ballot box and vote in November leaving the field wide open for the Republican Radical religious right candidates.

One other thing he can do is to start keeping his campaign promises.

The Democrats had a great opportunity with their majority in both houses of Congress. Those majorities are already slipping away and making his task harder.

His continued attempts at bi-partisanship when the Republicans have absolutely no interest in bi-partisanship have been a disaster. The Republicans are only interested in his failure so they can regain control of the US government.
.

user-pic

I am watching David Axelrod making the most bazaar excuse for why they have lost the last three specials elections. Holy Smoke, they just dont get it. Mr Axelrod cant see his part in the tailspin. He is drunk with power and arrogant and needs rehab or he will find rock bottom coming like a drunk passing out and sees the pavement coming at him but cant stop the crash.

user-pic

The Democrat I am most disgusted with today is Josh Marshall. Let us look at his descriptions of the progressives on the left (you know, the dirty f***ing hippies) from just today!
1. "...so far the big freak-out/fainting couch statements from the House have come from the left..."
2. "...since the House progressives have crossed a bunch of lines they drew in the sand this year....And along the lines of the sort of denial these folks seem to be in..."

It really seems to me that it's Josh Marshall who has been on the "big freak-out/fainting couch" denial rug all day. He positions himself as "fighting" for the health care bill (passing the Senate version) and us Dem progressives (like Nadler & Weiner, etc.) as the ones who are giving up and not fighting...the ones who are endangering Health Care Reform. From where I sit, Josh Marshall has supported every single health care reform sell-out that's gone down--he supports the current Senate bill (reluctantly, of course). He and the centrist Democrats have REFUSED TO FIGHT or to draw lines in the sand on any of this stuff and have demanded that the progressives also give in and go along with them (for the good of the party, for the good of health care reform, for the good of the country). And then they do stuff like today: our Democratic "realist" wimp brothers try to paint the progressives as the line crossers, the fainting couch hysterics, the self-centered short-sighters. The truth is, Josh is the one who is hysterical about about the possibility that this piece-of-shit NOT-reform-bill gift to the insurance companies won't pass! The horrors! If health care reform had been worth fighting for then we would have already seen some real fighting--from Obama and the Democratic leadership last summer and fall. Accepting every compromise that went down (i.e., the Senate bill) and then turning around and trying to position the disgusted progressives as lacking the "courage" to "fight" for "health care reform" is ass backwards and dishonest. Josh Marshall has proven he's no fighter. He really shouldn't taunt the progressives who are and then expect their help.

user-pic

I used to evaluate military organizations. When I ran into the kinds of anger and frustration we are hearing in comments from Democrats today the problem was invariable poor leadership.

I'm seeing that same dynamic again.

user-pic

RE: A friend said to me today, "I'll take Sarah Palin over Evan Bayh and his DLC Blue Dogs any day of the week..." - MJ
MY COMMENT: Friends don't let friends drive drunk!

user-pic

Don't let friends take either Palin or Bayh.

user-pic

I'm not angry today. I'm just sort of relieved the predicted earthquake is over, halfway hopeful that Washington Democrats will finally listen, and now ready to move on to Chapter II of this administration, the one entitled:

"In Which Our Hero Finally Gets It"

user-pic

Those are comforting words, I think I will stop reading analysis now and try to go to sleep with that thought. Thanks Dan,

user-pic

I feel little bit of strange relief, too.

Relief mixed with a bit of depression--kind of an odd mix.

However, one should note that the predicted hordes of progressives who were going to vote for Coakley...did not materialize.

user-pic

"For the first time in memory, we are more pissed off at our party than at the Republicans."

MJ, are you too young to remember 1968?

What can beat that?

user-pic

In answer to your highly formidable Question 'What can beat that?'.

TODAY and as within the recent decade 'IMPEACHMENT IS OFF THE TABLE' Compliments of the Democratic Leadership and our Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi.

user-pic

Oh, I forgot to include the seemingly DELIBERATE AND/OR INTENTIONAL negligence and/or dispicable and/or seemingly inexcuseable avoidance of the FULL House of Representatives Judicary Committee with Chairman John Conyers Presiding and ALL those whom gave Testimony on 8/2008 'PRESIDENTIAL POWERS AND IT'S LIMITATIONS' 'IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS' all of whom have done next to nothing within the expected and most likely required follow-ups and Statis reports to 'WE THE PEOPLE' AND WHERE APPROPRIATELY APPLICABLE,
MAIN STREAM MEDIA!!!!!!!

user-pic

Hey, Reader, find the period on your key board. A sentence is supposed to be one idea, not a paragraph. The purpose of punctuation is to aid your reader in understanding your points.

user-pic

I receive no slack for the frustrations.

How about,

Democracy Now.

Or, US Constitutional Democracy Now.

US Constitutional Expected, Mandated and Required 'FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WHISTLEBLOWER RESTORATION ENHANCEMENT PROTECTION ACT' NOW!! TODAY!! and as VERBALLY STATED AND SIGBED BY ALL DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES, INCLUDING PRESIDENT OBAMA, IN THEIR 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS!!!!!

Also, are you able to fully comprehend thses one sentences??????!!!!!!

Apparently the person who wrote This/His, at least DAILY ARTICLE ON TPM Article may not as His last sentence and as seemingly usual is 'And he needs to get the HCR bill passed by hook, crook, or reconciliation.'!!

user-pic

I recall numerous incidents during the nominating campaign of 2007-2008 when Obama was beaten down by Clinton, but bounced right back. I still have hope that he will do so again. I'm pretty sure he will do so again, at the risk of being a one-term President.

user-pic

The left is writing Obama off and the people who always hated him still hate him and always will. I think he is toast, a lame duck as of today. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't even run for a second term or if he does facing a severe Democratic primary challenge, from say, Jim Webb, that will cripple his chances, like Ted Kennedy did Jimmy Carter's.

Someone said that Obama doesn't have a populist bone in his body and that will be the political death of him. We are going to have populism in large doses. The Republicans will have Brown, Palin, Huckabee or maybe worse. The Democrats, if we are lucky, will find someone not in thrall of the special interests, a Roosevelt (unlikely) or a Martin Luther King, or if we aren't lucky, a Huey Long, but even a Long would be better than Palin or Brown.

I have always thought that Obama was swept into office at least 12 years too soon. Too soon for him as a person and too soon for the voters, who had practically nothing objective with which to judge him by; nothing but a book and some speeches, but no virtually no actions. In his case experience or the lack of it was considered irrelevant, it isn't. In a way, the media phenomenon that created him was as artificial as the Supreme Court ruling than handed the presidency to George W. Bush.

The entire crisis in all its aspects; geopolitical, economic etc, comes out of the rot and corruption in the relation between America's behemoth corporations, the political system and the media that facilitates this relationship. My prediction, and it's an easy one, is that we are going to see strange things happening in the next few years. 'Stranger and stranger' as Alice said.

user-pic

I agree.

No one can underestimate what the bizarre palin and her type of supporters are capable of.
And the anger of the average person is being ignored.

I always have maintained the real result of the democrats achieving their huge majorities was that they were exposed as the other side of the republican coin.

And that is the realization that is driving the anger of the people who were always willing to give democrats the benefit of doubt.

No longer!

user-pic

Obama was elected and the Democrats obtained their sizable majorities primarily because of the utter incompetence of the Bush/Cheney administration. The Democrats didn't have to fight for it. The Republicans handed the government to the Democrats without effort. They never fought to gain control of the government because they didn't need to. So no one ever led the party in a fight.

What we are seeing is a Democratic Party that has no effective leadership and no fight in it. Obama's refusal to act publicly on health care over the last week has clearly demonstrated his incompetence as a leader.

So America has an incompetent party filled with crooks, con men and religious bigots facing another incompetent party filled with office-servers who want nothing more than to survive the next election and get richer on the taxpayers dime. Unfortunately there is no room for a third party.

Anyone else wonder why it looks like America has no government except the inactive one permitted by the wealthy oligarchs and big business executives?

user-pic

"Obama was elected and the Democrats obtained their sizable majorities primarily because of the utter incompetence of the Bush/Cheney administration."

PULEEZE!
The Republicans were anything but incompetent.
They started their "war on terra".
They stole trillions from the US Treasury.
They instituted the rule of the corporation.
They trashed nine of the ten Constitutional ammendments in the Bill of Rights.

They even got the current Democrats in charge of the House and Senate to support them in all of this.

That is NOT incompetence.

These were not the results of incompetence, they were the results of a dedicated few, dedicated to the destruction of the USA as a nation of freedoms and equality.
.

user-pic

MJ said "For the first time in memory, we are more pissed off at our party than at the Republicans."

I have been getting so bored of being pissed at Republicans, they didn't have any real power for the last 6 months. I was pissed at them for abusing America during W's administration, but you knew to expect them to be evil, and to steal everything not bolted down.

I can't even go to dailykos, etc. and read the freakshow articles. It gets so boring, over and over "Sarah Palin says something stupid!" "Rush Limbaugh is Racist!" "Glen Beck said something offensive!". It's like ZOOOOOOMG every time these fully predictable events transpire, and liberals get so excited. I don't give too much of a shit. Those clowns need to be mocked, and shown to be liars, but they don't have any power.

I'm pissed at the Dems, and Obama especially, because they are in positions of power. They ran on a platform of "Change" from the policies of George W Bush, but have yet to deliver in any meaningful way on any big issues.

The list of items where Democrats have done nothing, or made things worse:

FISA
free trade
torture
wars
indefinite detention
state's secrets
pentagon budget
public school funding
Don Siegelman
Bernanke
Gates
DADT/DOMA
Health Insurance
Wall Street
Carbon-free progress
Bushie DOJ holdovers
letting Glenn Beck take scalps
Dawn Johnsen
show trials for Gitmo prisoners
commision to cut SS and Medicare
empowering Lieberman
Senate seat in MA

the list of dissapointments, and downright betrayals only grows with time

user-pic

I'm a lifelong Democrat. I'm beyond angry and into rage right now.

I have excused the stagnation and slow progress with healthcare legislation but was completely willing for this behemoth of a bill to be enacted even though I had reservations about certain aspects of the bill--like Nelson's sweetheart deal for Nebraska. I actually thought that our party leaders--particularly Obama--were on top of things.

This had been proven completely false. And, yes, I agree that it has been a failure of leadership. The lack of control over Webb and Frank was disgusting.

Unless healthcare is enacted, I believe we are looking at massive losses in November and a GOP president elected in 2012. With the leadership that was exhibited in the past couple of days, this scenario seems very likely to me.

We are electing weak leaders--or we already have them in Washington. And that means to me that things will have to get considerably worse before we get the leaders we need or even have a chance of getting voters to support them. And I am enraged that these seem to be my choices now. The better life I wanted for my grandchildren seems to be wishful thinking....

My rage knows no bounds....and I'm the "base" of loyal supporters that Obama will need. He has a short time-frame to keep me...perhaps a couple of weeks.

user-pic

I agree with you. I stupidly voted for Nixon in 1968 because he promised to get us out of Vietnam and stupidly, I believed him. He lied. Since then the Republicans have mixed lies, stupidity and a major effort to cram evangelical religion down the throats of Americans. So I've supported and made excuses for the Democrats.

Since I live in the Texas Theocratic Dominion, I cannot vote for the Republicans, but I am thoroughly angry at the Democrats. All of them.

The idea of sitting out an election always seemed to make theoretical sense to me, but now I understand why anyone would sit one out or vote for Nader.

Only we don't even have a Nader anywhere.

user-pic

"(And Glen Beck hates him which, I have to say, gives me a little hope),"

My take is that little Glenna doesn't like ss$arah too much, either. I think he's jealous of her. For the time being, she's getting more attention.

On the other point, maybe this Brown win will be exactly what the Dems need to kick start their asses. If that doesn't happen, It'll be my turn to give up some of that lingering hope.

user-pic


Obama never drew a single line that progressives could support and he refused to consider that personal attacks on him were personal attacks on his base.

In refusing to defend himself from their escalating attacks he lost the base because the base lost respect for him.

Its very easy for Hillary voters to vote against him and they will.

So who is left?
What were the easy things he could have done?

1.end the wars.
2. Bailout main street not wall street and stopped all foreclosures allowing refinancing.
3.should have prevented the banks from charging loan shark credit card rates.
4.allow cheaper drugs(importation)
5.give seniors living on poverty SS checks a decent COLA.
6. Enacted FDR, WPA projects to get millions working.

just those few things would have created enough good will and positive results he would be riding 65% approval.

instead he is looking at a failed presidency and (you thing republicans attacked before?, you aint seen nothing)has so lost the goodwill of the people that i put his chances at even running for a second term at less then 50%.

user-pic

Obama did as he was told.

He was the pressure relief valve. The proverbial Barn Door, so the rabble could pound on it to relief they're frustrations.

He should have went after the crooks on wall street "stricking while the iron was hot"

Instead he proposes to make healthcare his first objective. Never mind that the battle ground had changed. He runs right smack into a frontal assault, The cannons of Pharma and insurance.

Now his troop are dessimated.

Obama's generals failed to heed Stonewall Jacksons observations

" Always mystify, mislead, and surprise the enemy, if possible; and when you strike and overcome him, never let up in the pursuit so long as your men have strength to follow; for an army routed, if hotly pursued, becomes panic-stricken, and can then be destroyed by half their number. The other rule is, never fight against heavy odds, if by any possible maneuvering you can hurl your own force on only a part, and that the weakest part, of your enemy and crush it. Such tactics will win every time, and a small army may thus destroy a large one in detail, and repeated victory will make it invincible."

Obama knowing full well, he didn't want to touch this hot potato he allowed Congress to lead the charge. Plausible deniabilty. Blame Congress

Congress takes it and by doing so squandered the time, all in hopes to calm the peasant class from seeking the literal heads, of the banking industry.

No! Obama and Congress served they're Corporate Masters well.

The People get no real healthcare reform, wall street is saved from prosecution. A year lost

Republican lite is still Republican

user-pic

I am an angry Progressive, but let me say a word in defense of the despicable Glen Beck. He was right to be appalled at Scott Brown's comment that his daughters were "available." That was/is a disgusting comment.

user-pic

I think the left is innately encumbered with Attention Deficit disorder.

This link from this site is pretty typical of January 2009 euphoria about how Obama was "playing the GOP like a fiddle",....How he was going to "make em pay" and how the GOP was "committing political suicide".

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/house-passes-stimulus-with-zero-gop-votes.php

Here were the memes du jour of 12 months ago:

1. If the GOP doesn't act more like Olympia Snow "who everybody in America loves" and stop acting like Eric Cantor, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell who no one likes and no one would ever vote for, then America will continue to keep walking to the left every day forever and and ever and ever.

...this is the golden rule of trends. They are called "trends" because they are temporal and finite. Political movement to the left is not unstoppable, nor is it irreversible. Those who followed this line of thinking were getting carried away with wishful thinking.

2. The GOP is tearing itself apart. They are in Civil war. They can't agree on anything. The Democrats have proven that we can all unify under the big umbrella, because after all, if Hillary can kiss and make up with Barack after he called her and Bill racists, then cats and dogs will live together and we will be unified forever.

3. The GOP is doomed. They are committing suicide by not joining Obama in his brave new world of perfect legislation and social reform. We are about to embark on the long awaited utopia we have all been waiting for, and if they don't get out of the way, we will push them out of the way.

4. The Democrats now have a new era of "permanent majority".

5. Obama has an undeniable mandate to enact every promise I have "imagined" he made. Obama is definitely a man of the far left like me. Obama is definitely a man of the moderate left like me.

Many left wing pundits in the last several months have been honest enough to admit that they got a little drunk with the Hopium last year. Even Maureen Dowd admitted that she was wrong. What most Americans forget on the right and left is the political system we live in is not a Hollywood movie, where everybody opens their eyes one day and follows the great leader in to the sunset.

When people get frustrated with "obstructionists", lack of "Bipartisanship", Wishy washy non believers ruining OUR Party, slow moving progress,....that is what our founders wanted. They wanted a system that allowed social change in the domestic arena to move like mollasses, so we don't mess things up and so we are not rash in our decisions. This is the same reason it takes years to convict capital punishment cases. This is why Reagan didn't get everything he wanted. This is why GWB didn't get everything he wanted. The entire idea of checks and balances sounds great when it balances your way and sounds horrible when your starving to get your dessert. It was meant to move slow.

It was also meant to give busy working people time to come to grips with the issues that the people on the fringes claim to be experts on, but very often are not.

Let's look at Nov 2008. Pick some random numbers. Let's say the Howard Dean/Nader far left is 20% of the electorate. Let's say the Glen Beck far right is 20 per cent. These two groups will never agree or change. Then let's say the Evan Bayh/DLC/HRC moderate left is 20% and the Bob Dole/John McCain moderate right is 20%, that leaves that 20% in the middle that voted for Reagan, then for Clinton, then for GWB then for Obama.

The gains in the house and to a certain extent in the Senate, as well as the districts that Obama picked off, came from this 20%. Sure we can talk about getting out the base and Rove pumping up Christians and Obama pulling 95% blacks and so on, but this middle 20% is the swing.

Those gains in the house were Democrats that won by imitating Republicans in conservative districts. That's how they won. It is not the intrangisence of a stubborn freshman congressman that is standing in the way of this brave new world, nor is it Evan Bayh. These districts were red in October of 2008 and Blue in Nov 2008 and according to the polls and the special elections many of these districts are now red again. These people are called "Representatives"...they are supposed to represent. When Nancy Pelosi says she will force Healthcare through even when poll numbers are down to 37%, she is either showing bold leadership or she is compelling these purple district congressman to not represent the people.

You may shake your fist at the whim and fickleness, but this middle 20% is how Parliamentary systems form a coalition government.

What was gained with these seats in 2008 was viewed as a "permanent majority", but when these new Democrats in marginal districts got nervous, they were called cowards and turncoats,...as they are now. Many pundits speculated in January 2009 whether Obama would go slow and steady to not scare the middle or as E.J. Dionne said, Go for it all now while the iron is hot and if we lose houses in 2010, we'll deal with it then.

The Decision was nearly unanimous. Go for it all and do it quick.

This was a much talked about strategic decision. Everybody on this forum is pretending to not remember this decision. Every Democrat was part of that decision. As Kennedy said Failure is an orphan.

If you viewed the election as an irreversible mandate and a permanent shift left, then the Dionne strategy was the right one. Go for the whole ball of wax. The sacrificial lambs would be these new "One term" Democrats in marginal districts, but an omelette needs some broken eggs, right?

They may not represent their constituents perfectly, but the people spoke a year ago and they are speaking now. The Evan Bayh's and Joe Lieberman's of the world were sent to DC by millions of people's voices.

Joe Biden rarely tells an interesting story, or says anything interesting for that matter, but he told a story of his first day in congress when he spoke to an veteran statesman and said, "How can you be so polite to Jessee Helms, he is insane", and the man told young Biden, "Sen. Helm's was sent here by hundreds of thousands of people in South Carolina. I honor their voice and their will, not the man." Biden considers this his most valuable lesson in how he views his colleagues when they frustrate him. I don't know what that says about people from Delaware.


Try calling a congressman in a district you don't live in, the first thing they ask is are you in the district. If not they nearly hang up on you. These new Democrats were laid on the alter by the same people that are now mad at them for not being true believers.

We have to accept that the Progressive far left 20% will never get satisfaction in this system.

The Glen Beck 20% will never get satisfaction.

It is galling to both of these groups that a mushy middle that probably doesn't follow politics like they do can hold sway over our lives. But our founders wanted it that way. Everybody gets a voice in this system,...even the easily swayed and oft disinterested middle.

No Hollywood ending. It might sound boring, but it has worked "OK' for 220 years.

I remember the rhetoric of the unstoppable march of the left and the divided chaotic suicidal GOP and I have seen the rhetoric from the left flip 180 and now the GOP is called "lockstep", monolithic, shrewd, clever, calculating, unified.

...and if you want to see the terms used to describe the Democrats, scroll down.

It is possible that in politics, you don't take the highs to high and the lows too low. As Kipling reminded us, they are two imposters on either side of the same coin.

Don't listen to the people that are responding with rage, bitterness, hate and loathing. They are most likely the ones that were all for this strategy and would have been one of the thousand father's of success that Kennedy told us about.

Read the whole link and read all the comments and be honest with yourself where you stood a year ago.

user-pic

"The Decision was nearly unanimous. Go for it all and do it quick."

This would apply if the Democrats had even attempted to be quick on keeping the campaign promises.

A year has gone by and the most importand issues are not even close to being addressed, much less being resolved.

Emphasis has been on a futile effort at bi-partisanship and negotiating among themselves (the Democrats) to gut the health care reform bill in favor of the health insurance companies and big pharma.
.

user-pic
The Decision was nearly unanimous. Go for it all and do it quick."

This would apply if the Democrats had even attempted to be quick on keeping the campaign promises.

A year has gone by and the most importand issues are not even close to being addressed, much less being resolved.

Within days of taking office he pursued an attempt to grab a trillion dollar war chest as a slush fund for any Social Reform program he might want to contemplate over the next four years under the erroneous claim it was meant to stimulate the economy and create jobs. It went to bolster public sector jobs and has been horded in reserve while jobs continue to be lost. Was this act one the examples of reaching out in a bipartisan manner to the GOP? It sure was quick?

Then he nationalized 2 of the big three automakers with a sweetheart deal for Unions and threats of violence towards the Chrysler bond holders. Not neccesarily playing Mr. Nice Guy.

He dilly dallied on sending more troops to Afghanistan and then put a time limit on it, which is like putting a sign in front of fort knox and saying, "Will only be guarded on Wednesdays". This solution pissed everyone off on the right and left. If frustrating both parties equally is bipartisan, then he did that.

GWB came into office and immediately reached out and pursued legislation that he campaigned on that fell under the category of "Compassionate conservativism". Some of this stuff annoyed his base, but he promised it and sincerely wanted to make a bridge to the left. They spit in his open hand.

Obama has done nothing to reach out to the GOP.

Emphasis has been on a futile effort at bi-partisanship and negotiating among themselves (the Democrats) to gut the health care reform bill in favor of the health insurance companies and big pharma.

How do you figure he was bi-partisan about how he pursued Healthcare. They shut out Republicans from negotiations, he attacked the GOP as having no plan at all at a time when Boehner laid out a clear plan in black and white, which is more than the Democrats did, and he made no efforts to accomodate the Republican's ideas. If he didn't think ANY of the Republican ideas fit into his goals, then say so and move on, and admit that you are going it alone. Obama chose to go it alone without any Republican support, and now he is paying for it.

Bush decided to go ahead with the surge without support from Democrats and he suffered politically, but it turned out to be the right decision and it won the war.

Obama went ahead on HCR and today 61% say he should drop it.

In yesterdays Stephanopolous interview, he was asked if it was a risk to go after an expensive HCR bill in his first year at a time when we are in a deep recession and losing more jobs each month. His response was to say it might seem risky but if we don't address the issue now then when. He is basically admitting he was approaching the issue from the argument that it could have waited, but he decided it was politically viable now and may not be later. Well, he was wrong. It was not politically viable now.

Obama reminds me of one of those Bud Light commercials, "Too light, Too heavy".

You are saying he played too nice and that made things fall apart. In what way was he too accommodating?

The real reason is he was arrogant and didn't listen to the people. He is still doing it now.

If you read the link from a year ago, you will see the general consensus here was to hell with the GOP and the independents, "we won, we are unified and unstoppable, and the GOP is doomed, weak, and incapable of opposing us, so we can do what ever we want".

This attitude was frowned upon by the middle 20% of the electorate and actually scared a lot of people to see the left so drunk with power.

The moderate Democrats who are being blamed here for everything, if it was their view for Obama to be more accommodating and he ignored them, then they actually had the right approach and Obama had the wrong approach.

I think what I am hearing a lot of people saying here is that their ideas MUST be implemented, because they are right. What if there were someone on the right 8 years ago saying, we want to cut non-military government spending by 80 % and offer a flat tax that applies exactly the same to Rich and poor. And then when the people spoke and said "We don't want that",...the advocates of this policy start complaining that it MUST be implemented, because "I want it" and "I'm right" and the people are too dumb to get it, and we will never compromise because we have already compromised too much by doing 80% cuts and not 90%.

There comes a point where someone has to admit, that in a democratic system, if the people don't want your ideas and won't anytime soon, it may never happen in your lifetime.

As was noted in an earlier post, if you like universal healthcare, go to Scott Brown's state where nearly everybody is covered. It won't happen in this country.

Obama just wasted a year.

user-pic

"These districts were red in October of 2008 and Blue in Nov 2008 and according to the polls and the special elections many of these districts are now red again. These people are called "Representatives"...they are supposed to represent. When Nancy Pelosi says she will force Healthcare through even when poll numbers are down to 37%, she is either showing bold leadership or she is compelling these purple district congressman to not represent the people."

The problem here is that they are supposed BOTH to represent AND lead. This is why we don't have Athenian democracy. The people's will is supposed to be filtered and refined through their representatives.

If you don't represent, you get thrown out. But equally, if you don't know how to lead, you get thrown out, for similar but very different reasons.

user-pic

Well said. I think you are making my point.

The difference is knowing the diff.

Bush doubled down on the surge against withering attacks from the left. He alone chose correctly and won the war. That was leadership. He and the GOP suffered politically for doing the right thing. Obama is suffering politically for continuing to pursue HCR when nearly 2/3s of Americans wish he would shelf it indefinitely. Even the left admits that Obama's bill has become so deformed that no one believes this is right for America as it stands now. Yet until Tuesday he was prepared to jump off the cliff regardless. That's not leadership.

user-pic

I have a theory about Massachusetts. What's her name the loser is just a bigger putz than John Kerry. I don't see the complexity.

Facebook

Very nicely written post it contains useful information for me. I am happy to find your distinguished way of writing the post. Now you make it easy for me to understand and implement the concept. Thank you for the post.
Best Spiritual Books

Facebook

Excellent read, I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing a little research on that. And he actually bought me lunch because I found it for him smile So let me rephrase that: Thanks for lunch!
love poems

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address